On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 01:03:24PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 10/28/2010 12:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > BTW, maybe we could have the best of both worlds? Dunno about Perl, > > but in some languages it would be possible to instantiate the hash > > only if it's actually touched. Passing the data as a hash definitely > > seems to fit with the spirit of things otherwise, so as long as it > > didn't cost cycles when not needed, I'd be in favor of that API. > > Maybe, but I think that's getting rather beyond my perlguts-fu. I think > we'd need to do that via PERL_MAGIC_tied, but it's new territory for me. > Anyone else want to chime in?
Warning, I don't know the plperl, I am just a perl coder. I do think all the anonymous array are worth worrying about in terms of performance. I don't think that tie is necessarily good for performance. tie() is not generally fast. I think you'd likely be better off writing plain accessors or using a function to add type info. Use an accessor for type information, like this? $ref->typeof($key) ... or perhaps use a special function? add_type_info(\%args); ... or if you want attibute based syntax sugar for the add_type_info() solution... my %args : pg_record(add_type_info); Again, these I don't know the plperl code, so I might be missing something here. Garick > > cheers > > andrew > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers